Lunar Architecture Poll

Who thinks NASA's recently announced Exploration Systems
Architecture Study is the way to go? Who doesn't?
No hedging please, and remember that your answers will be
saved forever in the archives. :-)

Support: Ed Kyle

Oppose: ??

I see it as the best of a lot of bad choices.

Support. Becuase we'll finally have a lofter for NPP again.

Ed Kyle wrote:
Who thinks NASA's recently announced Exploration Systems
Architecture Study is the way to go? Who doesn't?
No hedging please, and remember that your answers will be
saved forever in the archives. :-)

Support: Ed Kyle

Oppose: ??

I'll delurk for a second to say that I'm firmly opposed too. This is a
lousy plan, and a waste of money. I'd support a NASA plan that
actually had some hope of leading to the settlement and commercial
development of cislunar space, but this is just another
welfare-for-nerds scheme.

~Jon

Ed Kyle wrote:

Who thinks NASA's recently announced Exploration Systems
Architecture Study is the way to go? Who doesn't?
No hedging please, and remember that your answers will be
saved forever in the archives. :-)


Although I can't see much of a rational reason to send men back to the
Moon, the way they are planning it looks workable, so I'll vote yes.

Support: Ed Kyle, Pat Flannery

Oppose: ??

"Ed Kyle" wrote in news:1127411165.786672.220640
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Who thinks NASA's recently announced Exploration Systems
Architecture Study is the way to go? Who doesn't?
No hedging please, and remember that your answers will be
saved forever in the archives. :-)


There is no "the" way to go, but I support it as a good way to go.

1. Unobtainium has been minimized in the design
2. Returns U.S. manned spaceflight to a modular architecture
3. Supports the definite timeline for shuttle's retirement

--
I was punching a text message into my | Reed Snellenberger
phone yesterday and thought, "they need | GPG KeyID: 5A978843
to make a phone that you can just talk | rsnellenberger
into." Major Thomb | -at-houston.rr.com

I oppose.

I go further and predict that it will either be rendered largely
irrelevant by commercial developments by that time, or else it will be
cancelled after another half-dozen lunar missions because it simply
costs too much and produces too little.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

Let you know in 30 years.

Alex Terrell wrote:
Let you know in 30 years.

OK - that was a bit of a cop out -

Ed and others have persuaded me that the architecture has some merits,
but I still think there are better alternatives, so a slight "no".

A bigger "no" is regarding the mission objectives. I just don't see a
need for
a: A unit weighing 25 tons to deliver crew to the ISS. This is "Soyuz
on Viagra"
b: Quick visits to the lunar surface, with the possible exception of
shortlisting a base site.

Given these two objectives, I think for a similar cost, with a slightly
different architecture, NASA could establish a base, with a crew of 8,
mining water (assuming it exists) and producing H2, O2 and H2O.

On 22 Sep 2005 10:46:05 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Who thinks NASA's recently announced Exploration Systems
Architecture Study is the way to go? Who doesn't?
No hedging please, and remember that your answers will be
saved forever in the archives. :-)

Support: Ed Kyle

Oppose: ??

I obviously oppose. Maybe we should set up a web petition for each
proposition. Or I could put up a poll at my blog, though I don't
really like to do that, because enforcing against multiple votes is a
PITA.